Monday, December 17, 2012

Who is the militia?

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before." - Rahm Emanuel

Today's crisis is that of this horrible shooting in Connecticut. Am I the only one to notice that the first people out pushing hard for gun control was the journalistic establishment? How about they try educating people for once? The second amendment is very clear.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Even without reading history, the last two sentences can't be messed up. But we're dealing with progressives, they seek to muddy the waters. And since they've revised all sorts of history and removed large parts of history out of the books altogether, they've built in their own ability to confuse the debate much more effectively. (This has been done by design, mind you. See [1] and [2])

So the focus is often thrown upon questions about the militia. What was the Founder's views on the militia? The 2A makes this pretty clear right in it's own text, the militia is what makes a free state free. But why? First let's ask Noah Webster, who lived during the time of the founding and was very much in favor of independence. In his "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution", he writes the following: (page 43)

But what is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties? Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state. This position leads me directly to enquire, in what consists the power of a nation or of an order of men?
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

The militia is the whole people. You and me, every one of us. It's sort of a euphemism, an interchangeable word. But Webster wasn't a Founder. He merely observed what others around him were saying, what the laws were written to express, and elaborated upon them. The Founders themselves said similar things. Like Tench Coxe, a Founder from Pennsylvania. In The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788, Coxe wrote:

The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

The militia is the whole people. This is very much in line with what Webster wrote. Federalist 46, written by the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, states the following:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger.

So Madison states pretty plainly that we need not fear the Federal government, and can easily disprove the reality of this danger. Why?

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation

"Possess over the people of almost every other nation". Again, that's very much what Webster said. (Madison also lists the existence of state governments, but sadly, the progressives have blown through that firewall of protection) As most of the people in Europe at that time were disarmed, it was very easy for tyrants to rule.

George Mason also said similar things. In the debates at the Virginia Ratifying Convention, the following is written, perhaps the most ominous of them all: (page 302)

I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty. Under such a full and equal representation as ours, there can be no ignominious punishments inflicted. But under this national, or rather consolidated government, the case will be different. The representation being so small, and inadequate, they will have no fellow-feeling for the people. They may discriminate people in their own predicament, and exempt from militia duty all the officers and lowest creatures of the national government.

And from there he goes on to talk about congress exempting themselves from duty, as if they were a bunch of monarchs.

But we can see the obvious. The militia is the whole people. The word ignominous means "Marked by shame or disgrace; despicable; degrading; debasing". Which is what tyranny is.

So if only poor and middle class Americans were armed, Mason warns us, tyranny would start to flourish.

Liberty requires the whole of the militia people to be armed. What would really be a shame is if 20 slain angels becomes the reason that iron fisted tyranny commences in these United States of America. But hey, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

No comments:

Post a Comment